You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Zarek Jamar Coleman v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Citations: 60 Va. App. 618; 731 S.E.2d 22; 2012 WL 3288637; 2012 Va. App. LEXIS 260Docket: 0469111

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; August 14, 2012; Virginia; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The appellant challenged his convictions for burglary and grand larceny following conditional guilty pleas, contesting the legality of a vehicle stop and search. The trial court affirmed the stop, found probable cause for the vehicle's passenger compartment search, and concluded the appellant consented to the trunk search. It also held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge a wallet's search in the trunk, given no reasonable expectation of privacy was demonstrated. On appeal, the appellant's lone assignment of error, which did not align with the trial court's findings, was deemed insufficient, leading to the appeal's dismissal under Rule 5A:12(c)(1). The court highlighted the necessity of proper assignments of error for appellate jurisdiction. The decision underscored the procedural requirements for appeals, emphasizing that a guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects, as seen in Davis v. Commonwealth. The appeal's dismissal resulted in the Commonwealth being awarded costs, with the order certified to the trial court for publication.

Legal Issues Addressed

Assignments of Error in Appeals

Application: The appellant's failure to properly assign error in accordance with procedural rules led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Reasoning: The court ultimately ruled that the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 5A:12(c)(1) due to insufficient assignments of error that did not align with the trial court's findings, reaffirming that compliance with procedural requirements is mandatory for appellate jurisdiction.

Consent to Search

Application: Coleman was deemed to have consented to the search of the vehicle's trunk, negating claims of unlawful search.

Reasoning: The trial court upheld the legality of the stop, found probable cause for searching the passenger compartment, and ruled that Coleman consented to the trunk search.

Probable Cause for Vehicle Search

Application: The trial court found probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the appellant's vehicle, upholding the legality of the stop and search.

Reasoning: The trial court upheld the legality of the stop, found probable cause for searching the passenger compartment, and ruled that Coleman consented to the trunk search.

Standing to Contest Search

Application: Coleman lacked standing to contest the search of a wallet in the trunk due to an absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the wallet was identified as stolen.

Reasoning: It determined that Coleman had no standing to contest the search of a wallet in the trunk, as he did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding it, particularly since it was established to be stolen shortly before his arrest.

Waiver of Non-Jurisdictional Defects by Guilty Plea

Application: The court emphasized that a guilty plea waives any non-jurisdictional defects, as demonstrated in the appellant's failure to challenge jurisdictional issues.

Reasoning: Davis argued that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea, but the Supreme Court ruled that his guilty plea waived any non-jurisdictional defects and that he did not raise any jurisdictional issues.